June 8, 2013

"Anybody who is a Republican who goes into politics and thinks they're going to get a fair shake from the mainstream media is obviously missing some IQ points."

"You go into it knowing you're going to have a tough road with the media and if you're not willing to deal with that, don't get into the race."

44 comments:

Mitchell the Bat said...

Any media source that trades on the idea of "secrets" has lost all credibility.

And Romney comes off as not much of a man so I don't know what the fuck that's all about.

Is it possible that he's just a blathering front man, too?

wildswan said...

A Declaration on the American Republic
All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights which tyrannts never cease to try to take from them. Among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We choose as our forefathers those who upon the North American continent brought forth a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. We are forever engaged in a great war testing whether our nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure the ordeal of turning the proposition onto a reality. We find ourselves upon the latest battlefield of that great war, an unknown, unconsecrated battleground in a secret unbounded war against the American proposition. It is a war unlike others in that it is led by secretive lying powers and by traitors, not by the patriots of some other nation. Let us now have faith that we shall overcome in this first struggle against digital tricks, this strange ordeal , this struggle against a net cast by shadows in a cloud, this weird danger which, after all, will soon be familiar to everyone. Surrounded as we are by so great a cloud of witnesses to our great founding proposition, surrounded as we are by the brave, both living and dead, who struggled in the past for equality for all, let us here and now resolve and declare that they shall not have fought in vain and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth. And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on Divine Providence we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Oso Negro said...

I think that any Republican who is running for President must assume that they are being spied on constantly with the mighty apparatus of the Democratically controlled Federal government.

Lem said...

"Anybody who is a Republican who goes into politics and thinks they're going to get a fair shake from the mainstream media is obviously missing some IQ points"....

That's the straight talk that got him, Romney, in hot water... the 47%.

McCain was supposedly a straight talker and it didn't get him anywhere either.

Straight talk is not what the people want?

ricpic said...

Romney's still passive. He ran a passive campaign and if he's to be believed about the reason he lost - apparently he thinks the official unemployment rate falling below 8% was key - why didn't he call that rate a big fat LIE and tell Americans their government was lying to them and their president was a total incompetent? The reason he didn't do those things is that the lodestar for an establishment Republican is to be NICE. It also happens to be the Republican death star.

Joe Schmoe said...

Mitt didn't excite anyone, even in the GOP. He was always a safe, fallback candidate. Repubs even kicked the tires more than once on guys like Newt and Santorum before settling on Mitt.

So I think Mitt's not being completely honest with himself, or at least with the interviewer, when he says stuff like an improving economy helped out the President. A majority were not only predisposed towards Obama, but away from Mitt, thus Obama was given more leeway with what he said and did. Mitt's mixups (of which many were false or exaggerated) were just another reason not to like him.

Joe Schmoe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jim murray said...

IMO Romney lost when, after the first debate, he played not to win but not to lose. You see this method repeatedly in sports.

AprilApple said...

The unprofessional pro-democrat hack media has killed real journalism in America.

It's dead.

LarsPorsena said...

Romney's still passive. He ran a passive campaign and if he's to be believed about the reason he lost - apparently he thinks the official unemployment rate falling below 8% was key -.................
----------------------------------

He might have said if the economy is improving why are a record number of people on food stamps?

Astro said...

Agree with ricpic and Joe Shmoe.
Romney's biggest problem was Romney.
Obama fought like a cornered rat.
Romney fought like his opponent was the winner of Alabama's Junior Miss pageant and he was too much of a gentleman to engage in fisticuffs.

AprilApple said...

Romney didn't fight.

Obama had the IRS, the cheat machine, and masses of idiots called "low information voters".



stlcdr said...

...and would there be a corollary about being a democrat getting into politics?

I think this says more - and not in a good way - about democrats and politics. While we all know politics is an underhanded cesspool, there should be a point at which there is a country that needs running. Republicans are hanging their hat on that notion and are condemned for it.

Oso Negro said...

Establishment Republicans are probably comfortable losers. If they wanted to win, they would reflect on why they promoted Romney as inevitable at every stop along the primary trail.

wyo sis said...

I despair of my country when Romney's sense of honesty and fairness is seen as beta male.
I don't think people even know what manliness is anymore. I know Obama has no idea how a man is supposed to be. He can't even act like a man.
Romney is a classic man of strength and purpose. He doesn't sit around and whine about how he was done wrong. He accepts his defeat and moves on. Compare that to the endless list of whiny excuses Weiner, McCain, Newt Gengrich, and Obama dredge up.
Christy is a man in the same way. They do what they think is best and take whatever the consequences may bring. You may not like Romney, but calling him a beta male compared to the sacks of shit in politics right now is just plain asinine.

Hagar said...

I am not sure why Romney lost, but this is not it.

Renee said...

@wyo sis,

I blame the birth control pill, it makes women like less manly men.

But I do not see Obama as less manly, though. Conflicted, in many ways, but not unmanly.

Remembering the PBS Frontline on Obama and Romney, I think being bi-racial and not fully accepted one way or the other, has something to do with the conflict.

campy said...

Romney is a man, but he went up against a God.

So he lost. End of myth.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

wyo sis,

I agree with you absolutely. Romney stands out in the current political climate as being neither a whiner nor a jerk. It's just sad that such a combination is as rare as it is, and that it's not really conducive to winning elections.

edutcher said...

The Romster didn't lose; the vote fraud machine had to be kicked into gear because all the NSA and FBI data collection followed by IRS and DOJ intimidation wasn't enough.

And a lot of Libertarians and some "Conservatives" use the result to prattle, "I knew it all along", only after the fact.

El Pollo Raylan said...

campy said...
Romney is a man, but he went up against a God.

That's pagan idolatry!

The Godfather said...

I like Romney, I happily voted for him, but he didn't run a strong race. Still, I have a hard time convincing myself that any other available Republican candidate would have done better. My first choice was Gov. Walker, but he didn't light anybody's fire. I had great hopes for Gov. Perry, but he showed himself not ready for prime time. Who else? Newt? Surely not. Sen. Santorum? I don't personally care for the single-minded focus on social issues, and I don't think that's what Americans are looking for, but perhaps I'm wrong.

I hope there's a better field in 2016.

Bender said...

OK, Romney, you say things would have been better if you were elected. You say you would have had the answers.

So what are they?

Give us the answers now. Give us the plan. Disclose the comprehensive policy.

So what if it won't be you to implement it. Tell us what it is anyway. You don't need to be elected, you don't need to be the one in office to help fix things.

But that's just it, isn't it? There never really was any plan, any ideas. The only answer you had was Mitt Romney. The only plan was you getting into office. "Elect me, that's why" was the complete extent of your campaign. And people saw you for the weasel that you are.

elkh1 said...

"I take responsibility for myself."
It's not Bush's fault.

Bender, don't be stupid. Obama is too busy snooping thru your records to listen to Romney or anybody else.

Obama won, his IRS clamped down the Tea Partiers. Just before the election, the MSM declared the Tea Party was dead, the Tea Partiers didn't follow thru. Now we know why. Obama's IRS leaked Romney's donors' tax info to Obama's minions, Obama's IRS audited Sheldon Adelson twice just before the election to intimidate other donors. The IRS was another arm of Obama campaign, so was the Justice Dept. that intimidate journalists (not the MSM journolists) to stop their dirt and mud from leaking. How many Romney's strategizing phone calls have they listened to?

Wonder if those things made a difference?

victoria said...

Whiners and complainers. Do something, just don't sit around and complain.

Romney lost because he was an inferior candidate. The Republicans have a habit of doing that.


Vicki from Pasadena

Biff said...

Bender wrote: OK, Romney, you...say you would have had the answers...Give us the answers now. Give us the plan. Disclose the comprehensive policy...But that's just it, isn't it? There never really was any plan, any ideas..."Elect me, that's why" was the complete extent of your campaign. And people saw you for the weasel that you are.

Seriously? I agree that Romney could have run a much better campaign, but a lack of plans and details was not his problem. I seem to recall him being criticized for sharing too MUCH detail, like his "59 Point" jobs plan, and that he was too used to presenting detailed, Bain-style analyses and turnaround plans, driving away voters who were used to being fed sugar coated platitudes.

You might also take a look at the article in Time from earlier this week that discussed some of the Romney team's plans, including a 138 page transition report.

I saw Romney as a good man but a seriously flawed candidate. An absence of plans, however, was not one of his flaws.

Bender said...

OK, so the Romney campaign staff released a piece of paper, calling it a plan, which contained a lot of bumper sticker, boilerplate talking points. And, yes, although he never really promoted this "plan" himself on the campaign trail, Romney did throw out some buzz-words here and there, like “cutting spending,” “energy security” and preparing “American workers for the jobs of today and tomorrow," but never ever ever was there any substance behind it.

Romney specifically ran on "competence, not ideology." He ran on himself. Even now, he is not promoting answers, he is still focused on himself.

wyo sis said...

Claiming Romney was an inferior candidate to Obama says more about the voters than about Romney.

Baron Zemo said...

Romney was a Rhino Pussy of the first water.

He had to go after Obama for the many things he could point to show that he is one of the worst and most corrupt Presidents in American History.

Of course Romney was afraid of being called a racist and wanted to assuage the media which would have savaged him no matter what he said.

We needed a street fighter not a pacifist.

Baron Zemo said...

Now the same unholy alliance is building up another Rhino Chris Christie. He might be a fighter but the only people he would want to fight are the people in his own party. Right to lifers. Social conservatives. They very people he needs to win.

Baron Zemo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chip S. said...

I hope there's a better field in 2016.

PRISM will take care of that.

(via viator, in another thread)

El Pollo Raylan said...

@Chip: IMO, you can't be dead serious about implementing redistribution unless you're willing to destroy its opponents.

I am taken aback at the willing complicity on the part of IRS employees. The jobs must pay more than 30 pieces of silver.

Baron Zemo said...

You can't be afraid of these fucks.

You have to go for their throats. Because they will never give an inch. They are corrupt and evil people and need to be brought to justice.

We need a special prosecutor and the full bore Watergate style attack that the Dems did to Nixon. Because Obama is Nixon. Only worse. Every crime that they accused Nixon of this guy is guilty of in spades.

So to speak.

Baron Zemo said...

Secret wars. Enemies lists. Using the IRS to destroy political opponents. Wiretapping and invading the privacy of American citizens.

Obama is the Uber-Nixon.

Chip S. said...

Stalin's willing executioners slaughtered the kulaks.

Hitler's willing executioners slaughtered the Jews.

Obama's willing auditors are quite moderate by comparison.

Renee said...

Romney was running against a Nobel Peace Award winner, that would be like running up against Mother Teresa.

Standards and definition of peace has changed though.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Obama's willing auditors are quite moderate by comparison.

True, but political repression always starts small.

Chip S. said...

What I meant was that I'm not surprised that it was easy to get the IRS folks to go along w/this shit. Not that this is trivial shit.

Baron Zemo said...

The were plenty of things Romney could have hammered Obama with that were legitimate failures of his administration.

The gun running to Mexican cartels in Fast and Furious.

Benghazi.

Drone attacks on American citizens.

Romney played prevent defense. He thought he had it in the bag.

Bender said...

He thought he had it in the bag

He was the "inevitable" so quit your complaining and get behind him. What do you want, for Obama to win? So what if before Romney, voters preferred Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann, and Santorum. So what if he routinely topped out at 25-30 percent support in the primaries despite running for six years. Romney was inevitable.

He didn't need to give anyone a reason to vote for him other than "I'm not Obama" or "I can do better than him."

Instead of Althouse's "Obama is Bush" crap-tag, this goes under "Romney is Obama." They and their campaigns are/were both arrogant and presumptuous.

And when folks on the right did point out his many gross deficiencies, it was they who were attacked as the enemy, rather than condeding (as was proved on election day) that they had a point.

El Pollo Raylan said...

And when folks on the right did point out his many gross deficiencies, it was they who were attacked as the enemy, rather than condeding (as was proved on election day) that they had a point.

My recollection is that your man, Santorum, lacked enough popular support. In a pair up of Santorum vs. Obama, Obama would have have won without even secretly threatening the Tea Party.

Romney wasn't my favorite either, but in the end, his pick of Paul Ryan partially bridged the internal chasm. I see you pretty much as an unflinching obstructionist, unwilling to even consider compromise.

Bender said...

it was they who were attacked as the enemy

Oso Negro said...

Chip S. said...
Stalin's willing executioners slaughtered the kulaks.

Hitler's willing executioners slaughtered the Jews.

Obama's willing auditors are quite moderate by comparison.

6/8/13, 12:23 PM



So far.